Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!CORY.BERKELEY.EDU!dillon
From: dillon@CORY.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Better Windows? (LONG, but different) (& other topics)
Message-ID: <8705150710.AA25245@cory.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Fri, 15-May-87 03:10:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: cory.8705150710.AA25245
Posted: Fri May 15 03:10:04 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 16-May-87 14:12:59 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Lines: 66


> This, I greatly disagree with.  GEM from DRI is a very fast environment.
> I am talking about GEM (and GEM applications such as GEM Draw Plus) on an XT.
> I feel that a person could use GEM Draw as they use MacDraw.
> Though in some respects it may not be as smooth to use as a Mac,
> it is as fast (or close enough) for it not to be an issue.
>... etc..

	First, I would like to note that Henri Socha posted this message to
four newsgroups .. amiga, atari, mac, and ibm, and thus his comments are
quite general and not aimed specifically at a single computer.

	Secondly, remember that if you reply normally, you will be cross
posting to these other groups as well (talk about net overload!).  This 
reply of mine is only going to comp.sys.amiga .

	So just between us, and not repeating his entire article, I would
generally agree that GEM/microsoft windows are extremely fast relative to the
theoretical maximum achievable on an IBM (insert favorite model here).  About
the fastest I've seen microsoft windows go (admittedly a brief encounter) is
about 10-15% slower than a Mac's windowing system, and no where near as pretty.
And as far as comparing it to Intuition, the Amiga wins hands down. (Note that
I didn't say 'workbench' here.. I'm talking about bringing up and using 3 
screens with maybe 15 windows between them).

	The second half of the article deals with the great advances in
multitasking for the PC.  We Amigans might yawn... "oh... finally", and
"(shug) so what?" and go back the original "if it wasn't meant
to multitask originally, then making it multitask now isn't much of a gain"
argument which is based upon the fact that most programs written for 
single-tasking machines tend to use busy loops for almost all waiting.  The
Amiga wins hands down here also since it was built with a multitasking core.

	Notice that the other two major micro's on the market: the Mac and the
IBM (any model IBM PC) are *finally* heading towards multitasking, but 
attempting to implement it using the same old OS architecture as previous 
single-tasking machines.  The only reason this can be done is due to the 
advent of MMU's (or something similar) in the new machines.  Apple's OS is so
messy that they've basically scrapped trying to make it multitask, and are
porting UNIX over instead.  Thank you, I'll take EXEC's shared libraries any
day.

	Now I ask you, how efficient do you think IBM is going to be able to
make their new multitasking OS???  Never mind the fact that they still use
CR-LF as the line terminator, and have two file modes (text/binary)!

	Final Note:  In previous years, most micro OS's have actually been 
non-OS's.  The Amiga's OS is the first *real* OS for micro's that I've seen.
Why?  What makes the Amiga different?  How many programs written for the
Amiga use hardwired "global" memory locations??  Didn't think so.  Now
look at the Mac: Hardwired locations and address ranges everywhere.  Look at
the Atari: Same thing!  Look at the IBM: IBM?? Ahhhh yes, the IBM.  Well, they
had the right idea, but IBM's BIOS routines are so incredibly slow that 
almost nobody uses them when they want speed.  So you wind up using hardwired
locations after all.

	About the most 'hardwired' I've ever gone on the Amiga is to
manipulate the bitmaps for custom screens directly, and that hardly counts
since you go through Intuition to get the addresses (plus the fact that the
addresses are definately *not* hardwired).

	If the unlikely occurs and the Amiga doesn't survive, it's OS and
OS concepts certainly will.


					-Matt